PDA

View Full Version : Yeah, Graf's competition is so much stronger than the Williams sisters


EtePras
08-08-2009, 06:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Jmi739lvM&feature=related

They were such amazing players back in the day! Players today only know how to "bash" with power. Now pushing, however, THAT's real skill. It truly shows off the variety and precision of the 80's-90's era of tennis!

Andy G
08-08-2009, 06:37 PM
Yeah, I agree 100%. I posted a thread about this, and how Graf's Golden Slam in 1988 is so under-rated. If anyone today won all 4 majors and the olymoic gold in the same year, they would be heralded as the the greatest. Not to mention that she is the only player to complete a grand slam across 3 different surfaces. For those of you who don't know, there are a few women who won grand slams, it's not just Laver & Budge. Could you imagine the fire that would erupt at TW between Fed & Nadal fans if either of these men would have gotten a golden slam last year. Yet Graf's accomplishment is over looked because she is a 'she'.
http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=153982

Grass_for_cows
08-08-2009, 06:50 PM
I think the OP is being facetious. On the other hand that's not just pushing, that's pushing.

And besides how many women today can hit overheads consistently? Sharapova or Jankovic would've smacked a swinging volley into the net before the moonball rally could get going.

lawrence
08-08-2009, 06:50 PM
lol i think the OP was being sarcastic

フェデラー
08-08-2009, 06:54 PM
where is julesb on this? Seles moonballing like an idiot lmao

JeMar
08-08-2009, 07:02 PM
Julesb... I choose YOU!!!

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/1/14607/334606-160760-pokeball_large.gif

julesb
08-08-2009, 07:12 PM
Monica let Chris win that match. She knew it was the final U.S Open of the great legend. While neither Monica or Chris were anywhere near their primes, Monica even much further from hers in fact, she knew most expected her to win that match since she had beaten Chris on clay. If she could beat Chris on clay it would have been expected she would easily beat her on a fast hard court but she knew it would be sad for the great Chris Evert to not atleast make the quarters of her last slam and lose to some 15 year old kid way before her prime so she tanked the match basically.

Lifted
08-08-2009, 07:15 PM
^^^^^^

Go on...

julesb
08-08-2009, 07:16 PM
I think it was very nice of Monica.

Lifted
08-08-2009, 07:24 PM
^^^^

Go on...

Andy G
08-08-2009, 07:35 PM
Julesb, you're tagline states that graf is the most over rated female player of all time. You can't possibly be serious, 22 majors, 377 weeks #1-more than anyone male or female, 8 year end #1s, 107 titles. Over rated?? Seriously. You have your opinions, but to say over rated, yet most over rated of all time, is ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steffi_Graf_career_statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WTA_number_1_ranked_players

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 08:17 PM
Margaret Court's grandma had better competiton in the 1850's than the William Sisters have now with all the fat clowns, russian headcases, or never will's

Cantankersore
08-08-2009, 08:53 PM
Margaret Court's grandma had better competiton in the 1850's than the William Sisters have no with all the fat clowns, russian headcases, or never will's

Why can't people just admit that in 20 years, the general skill level in professional players has increased?

GameSampras
08-08-2009, 08:57 PM
Why can't people just admit that in 20 years, the general skill level in professional players has increased?


Skill level?? Youre serious? Youre saying chicks like Ivanovic the eye candy, Jankovic, Dementieva, Safain have a greater skill level than a Martina, Evert, Graf, Goolagong, Seles?

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 09:02 PM
Why can't people just admit that in 20 years, the general skill level in professional players has increased?

Since it hasnt. The current mens and womens fields are the worst in tennis history, but even moreso the current womens fields than the mens. As a longtime WTA fan who has followed the sport closely since the mid 70s I am appaled at the state of womens tennis the last 3-4 years. Even earlier this decade it was light years better than now. Serena is even more dominant in the slam than she was at her 1999-2003 peak and she is about 60% the player (if that) that she was back then.

akv89
08-08-2009, 09:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Jmi739lvM&feature=related

They were such amazing players back in the day! Players today only know how to "bash" with power. Now pushing, however, THAT's real skill. It truly shows off the variety and precision of the 80's-90's era of tennis!

That is just disgusting tennis.

grafselesfan
08-08-2009, 09:21 PM
So one lame point where they both hit moonballs. Evert was killing Monica in that match, Monica was probably desperately trying an almost unimaginable tactic to try and cool off a red hot Evert.
It happens. Atleast in desperation she is obviously thinking and trying to come up with something, which todays women ever do. If you want to see disgusting tennis show one of todays women serving for a big match that is still reasonably close and double faulting atleast twice in the game gauranteed.

EtePras
08-08-2009, 09:27 PM
Skill level?? Youre serious? Youre saying chicks like Ivanovic the eye candy, Jankovic, Dementieva, Safain have a greater skill level than a Martina, Evert, Graf, Goolagong, Seles?

Didn't I just prove that Evert and Seles are about as good as a 3.0 pusher? I highly doubt anyone that's known for losing to them would be much better.

CountryHillbilly
08-08-2009, 09:31 PM
lol i think the OP was being sarcastic

lol,

I think Monica and Chris were being sarcastic

boredone3456
08-09-2009, 09:49 AM
Why can't people just admit that in 20 years, the general skill level in professional players has increased?

so the fact that matches today have more unforced errors than winners, frequently have more breaks of serves than holds, and players contesting them who know how to do nothing else besides trying to give the ball a concussion means there is more general "skill" among players today? Sorry that does not compute in my mind. Just because they hit the ball harder, does not mean they are better.

grafselesfan
08-09-2009, 09:56 AM
so the fact that matches today have more unforced errors than winners, frequently have more breaks of serves than holds, and players contesting them who know how to do nothing else besides trying to give the ball a concussion means there is more general "skill" among players today? Sorry that does not compute in my mind. Just because they hit the ball harder, does not mean they are better.

They dont even hit harder. Outside of the Williams sisters and maybe Dementieva (off the ground only) Graf, Seles, Davenport, Pierce, Court, Schultz McCarthy, Novotna, Navratilova, Mandlikova, Stove, the old Sharapova (pre shoulder woes), Capriati, Huber, Majoli, mid 90s Maggie Maleeva, early 2000s Dokic, early 2000s Hantuchova, Henin, Clijsters, Schwarz, Lucic, all hit the ball harder than any of todays other players, plus probably a bunch of others I forgot. Just because the only thing todays players (outside the Williams) can do well is hard hitting doesnt mean they are even that great at that. :)

Sartorius
08-09-2009, 10:17 AM
Except the Williams sisters, currently there's no one on the tour that you would say "she's going to play well today" and be absolutely sure about it. Players often don't show up when they need to.

That's bad.

boredone3456
08-09-2009, 10:33 AM
Except the Williams sisters, currently there's no one on the tour that you would say "she's going to play well today" and be absolutely sure about it. Players often don't show up when they need to.

That's bad.

Lately...you can't even say that about the Williams. Venus loses early all sorts of places to players years ago she would steamroll. The only places Venus really seems to play consistantly well lately are Wimbledon, the US Open, maybe Miami and occasionally the YEC. Other than that she is up and down as much as anyone.

Serena plays good at the slams...not great, just good. Outside the slams she doesn't, this year she has lost outwside of the slams to Stosur, Zakopalova, Schnyder, Dementieva...going back a little further she has lost to Li Na to. Even at the slams she has had several near losses. (Azarenka and Kuznetsova at this years Australian, Zakopalova and Martinez Sanchez at the French, Dementieva at Wimbledon, Venus at the US Open last year). she wasn't playing remarkably well in any of those matches...although she got the job done.

Serena of 02-03 and Venus of 00-02 would destroy themselves today ..but they are still at the toptop because the players around them are unable to capitlize on their weaknesses consistantly...especially in Serena's case at the majors. Looking at the list of players they both have lost to or nearly lost to this year...and its tough to say even they can be gauranteed to play at their potential bests today.

Ambivalent
08-09-2009, 10:36 AM
Oh my god that might be the first time i've seen back and forth moonballing in pro tennis.

I dont like.

pmerk34
08-09-2009, 10:39 AM
so the fact that matches today have more unforced errors than winners, frequently have more breaks of serves than holds, and players contesting them who know how to do nothing else besides trying to give the ball a concussion means there is more general "skill" among players today? Sorry that does not compute in my mind. Just because they hit the ball harder, does not mean they are better.

There were a million breaks of serves of women players in the 80's and early 90's unless their names were Martina or Steffi. Women's tennis back then was more unwatchable then than now.

pmerk34
08-09-2009, 10:41 AM
They dont even hit harder. Outside of the Williams sisters and maybe Dementieva (off the ground only) Graf, Seles, Davenport, Pierce, Court, Schultz McCarthy, Novotna, Navratilova, Mandlikova, Stove, the old Sharapova (pre shoulder woes), Capriati, Huber, Majoli, mid 90s Maggie Maleeva, early 2000s Dokic, early 2000s Hantuchova, Henin, Clijsters, Schwarz, Lucic, all hit the ball harder than any of todays other players, plus probably a bunch of others I forgot. Just because the only thing todays players (outside the Williams) can do well is hard hitting doesnt mean they are even that great at that. :)

Mandlikova did not hit that hard. Geez. Margaret court? Are you serious. She looked like she was playing bandminton.

CCNM
08-09-2009, 02:55 PM
pushing-not sure what that is. Is that when you come to the net to play???

Lionheart392
08-09-2009, 02:59 PM
pushing-not sure what that is. Is that when you come to the net to play???

No a pusher is like someone who chases down every single ball regardless of whether or not they have a chance of winning the point.

JeMar
08-09-2009, 03:02 PM
No a pusher is like someone who chases down every single ball regardless of whether or not they have a chance of winning the point.

That's more of a counterpuncher.

A pusher is someone who just gets the ball back with little to no pace and just waits for an error from his opponent. They're usually public enemy number 1 at tennis clubs because no one respects their game, and are annoyed that they keep losing to them.

Lionheart392
08-09-2009, 03:04 PM
That's more of a counterpuncher.

A pusher is someone who just gets the ball back with little to no pace and just waits for an error from his opponent. They're usually public enemy number 1 at tennis clubs because no one respects their game, and are annoyed that they keep losing to them.

Ok thanks for the clarification... I heard that they often like to **** off their opponents in the hope that frustration will affect their game.

ronalditop
08-09-2009, 03:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Jmi739lvM&feature=related



That was painful.

Bilbo
08-09-2009, 03:59 PM
They dont even hit harder. Outside of the Williams sisters and maybe Dementieva (off the ground only) Graf, Seles, Davenport, Pierce, Court, Schultz McCarthy, Novotna, Navratilova, Mandlikova, Stove, the old Sharapova (pre shoulder woes), Capriati, Huber, Majoli, mid 90s Maggie Maleeva, early 2000s Dokic, early 2000s Hantuchova, Henin, Clijsters, Schwarz, Lucic, all hit the ball harder than any of todays other players, plus probably a bunch of others I forgot. Just because the only thing todays players (outside the Williams) can do well is hard hitting doesnt mean they are even that great at that. :)

navratilova's second serve would get killed by some of today's hard hitters...

grafselesfan
08-09-2009, 04:13 PM
navratilova's second serve would get killed by some of today's hard hitters...

Such as whom? Outside the Williams sisters there are no really impressive hard or big hitters left today.

Lionheart392
08-09-2009, 04:16 PM
navratilova's second serve would get killed by some of today's hard hitters...

Such mindless ball bashers would be too confused seeing her running to the net to concentrate on attacking her serve. Serve and volley??? What the heck is that???

Petra Martinnen
08-10-2009, 07:35 AM
What many are missing is that there is MUCH more depth today and because of it we see parity. Parity for many fans is not enjoyable because it is hard to dominate. If you think the first week of slams is a joke now, look back a few decades!! Rank amateurs.

So today players seem to move in and out of the zone and some fans paste them as being "weak." Even a Navratilova would not win 18 slams today nor would Chris. Shout as you might, but I'd argue that even an Azarenka is as good as Virginia Wade! Jankovic would obliterate BJK!

Isn't it good that tennis is raising its level even if it means we don't get Smith or Graf like dominance?

On TTC I saw a prime 1991 Seles match where Monica's 1st serves averaged 85 mph! Think about it!

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 07:51 AM
What many are missing is that there is MUCH more depth today and because of it we see parity. Parity for many fans is not enjoyable because it is hard to dominate. If you think the first week of slams is a joke now, look back a few decades!! Rank amateurs.

So today players seem to move in and out of the zone and some fans paste them as being "weak." Even a Navratilova would not win 18 slams today nor would Chris. Shout as you might, but I'd argue that even an Azarenka is as good as Virginia Wade! Jankovic would obliterate BJK!

Isn't it good that tennis is raising its level even if it means we don't get Smith or Graf like dominance?

On TTC I saw a prime 1991 Seles match where Monica's 1st serves averaged 85 mph! Think about it!


Women's tennis has gotten better at a faster rate from 25 years ago then mens tennis has.

Women's tennis from the 80's and pre-power early 90's was a joke until the finals or semi's. The greatest woman's player I have ever seen is Marina Navratilova and I would find it absurd to think she would reach 40 slam singles finals in this era.

Heck even Hingis, built like a little cheerleader was able to win 3-4 slams in 1997. Quite unimpressive if you ask me that there was not a enough power even then to beat her.

CCNM
08-10-2009, 08:02 AM
No a pusher is like someone who chases down every single ball regardless of whether or not they have a chance of winning the point.

So they try to return every shot fired at them?

Lionheart392
08-10-2009, 08:05 AM
So they try to return every shot fired at them?

"In tennis, a pusher is a player who "pushes" back any shot they can chase down, without deliberately hitting a winner. This style of play, likened to a "human backboard", often tires and frustrates more skilled opponents."

That's wikipedia's definition, and let's face it, wikipedia never lies. :)

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 08:06 AM
"In tennis, a pusher is a player who "pushes" back any shot they can chase down, without deliberately hitting a winner. This style of play, likened to a "human backboard", often tires and frustrates more skilled opponents."

That's wikipedia's definition, and let's face it, wikipedia never lies. :)

That is a perfect definition.

Lionheart392
08-10-2009, 08:07 AM
That is a perfect definition.

Which proves that wikipedia never lies :)

Grass_for_cows
08-10-2009, 08:13 AM
So today players seem to move in and out of the zone and some fans paste them as being "weak." Even a Navratilova would not win 18 slams today nor would Chris. Shout as you might, but I'd argue that even an Azarenka is as good as Virginia Wade! Jankovic would obliterate BJK!

Isn't it good that tennis is raising its level even if it means we don't get Smith or Graf like dominance?

On TTC I saw a prime 1991 Seles match where Monica's 1st serves averaged 85 mph! Think about it!
That's exactly what Monica wants you to do. While you are wondering about the 85 mph serve she sneaks in a sharp-angled two-handed forehanded past your *** for a winner. Game, set, match, Seles.

MesQueUnClub
08-10-2009, 08:34 AM
Honestly I would rather watch that than the monstrosity that was on ESPN 2 this week with Sharapova playing and making 60+ double faults in 4-5 matches. To top it off, they talked about her shoulder surgery from 9 months back and how it's affecting her serve non-stop for the 3 matches that I saw...barely even mentioned anything about the opponent .... one of whom packed her off and later won the tournament.

She had 15 double faults in one match and still managed to win it. How pathetic is that. Add the 40+ unforced errors to that and it was a total entertainment package :(

CCNM
08-10-2009, 09:08 AM
"In tennis, a pusher is a player who "pushes" back any shot they can chase down, without deliberately hitting a winner. This style of play, likened to a "human backboard", often tires and frustrates more skilled opponents."

That's wikipedia's definition, and let's face it, wikipedia never lies. :)
Okay. I get it (note to self-get your own computer w/access to youtube and look at some examples of playing styles)

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 09:10 AM
Okay. I get it (note to self-get your own computer w/access to youtube and look at some examples of playing styles)

You won't many example of pushing at the pro level.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 09:41 AM
Nobody has even really answered my earlier question. Apart from the Williams who are these great power players or super hard hitters today that are ushering in this scary power era of tennis. Is anyone even going to try and argue Safin, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Ivanovic, Jankovic, busted shouldered Maria are these amazing super power hitters who bring power to a new level compared to Graf, Seles, Davenport, Pierce, old Maria, Capriati, Henin, Lucic, early 2000s Dokic, and a bunch of others, LOL! The field today sucks, even the amazing power quota argument doesnt fly. There was even MUCH more power in the game 5, 10, 15, and 20 years ago than there is today. The last time there were less impressive power hitters in the womens game was at the latest back when there were last wood racquets. Well I wonder why then.

The only thing todays girls do well is hit hard, I agree with that, but they dont even do that particularly well. Dokic is about half the player she was when she was in the top 10 in the early 2000s when the Williams, Davenport, Capriati, and Henin at their peaks were on top, and she still was slugging it out and holding her own vs World #1 Safina in Australia. In her early 2000s form she would probably have powered Safina right off the court and be winning slams today, where at the time of her peak tennis she was a marginal top tenner for a bit.

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 09:44 AM
Nobody has even really answered my earlier question. Apart from the Williams who are these great power players or super hard hitters today that are ushering in this scary power era of tennis. Is anyone even going to try and argue Safin, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Ivanovic, Jankovic, busted shouldered Maria are these amazing super power hitters who bring power to a new level compared to Graf, Seles, Davenport, Pierce, old Maria, Capriati, Henin, and a bunch of others, LOL! The field today sucks, even the amazing power quota argument doesnt fly. There was even MUCH more power in the game 5, 10, 15, and 20 years ago than there is today. The last time there were less impressive power hitters in the womens game was at the latest back when there were last wood racquets. Well I wonder why then. The only thing todays girls do well is hit hard, I agree with that, but they dont even do that particularly well.

You make no sense. 20 years ago there was more power? Get serious.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 09:47 AM
You make no sense. 20 years ago there was more power? Get serious.

I am still waiting to hear a list of all the impressive power hitters of today. OK Serena and Venus, despite being about half the players they once were, fine. Who else? Yes players like Graf, Navratilova, Capriati, Seles, even Sukova all hit the ball much harder than todays mediocre excuse of power hitters like the current Russians and Serbs.

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 09:57 AM
I am still waiting to hear a list of all the impressive power hitters of today. OK Serena and Venus, despite being about half the players they once were, fine. Who else? Yes players like Graf, Navratilova, Capriati, Seles, even Sukova all hit the ball much harder than todays mediocre excuse of power hitters like the current Russians and Serbs.

Sukova and Martina bunted the ball compared to Safina. Graf sliced her backhand 90% of the time. Capriati I consider today's era and Seles hit very hard.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 10:05 AM
Sukova and Martina bunted the ball compared to Safina. Graf sliced her backhand 90% of the time. Capriati I consider today's era and Seles hit very hard.

LOL Martina bunted the ball compared to Safina!?!? Martina had a much bigger and more reliable serve, a bigger forehand, those crushing volleys and overheads which were the best ever, returned with more authority and skill. Sukova also hits a much bigger serve, much bigger forehand, an agressive net game with some crushing smashes which Safina could only dream of. Safina hit a harder (not better but harder) backhand, that is it. Compared to Graf, Navratilova, Seles, Capriati especialy Safina power wise looks like she is playing lawn bowling, and yet that is the only thing Safina does well. Pretty sad that this is one of the so called best players in the World of today, especialy for those trying to argue some amazing power renaissance.

Capriati is NOT part of todays field or even todays era. She last ever played a professional match in 2004, her career spanned from 1991 to 2004. She is about 10 years older than players like Safina, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Jankovic, busted shouldered Sharapova, etc...She did play a number of years in the later years of her long career vs players who were actually in between her era and the current one- people like Venus, Serena, Dementieva, but that is it. She is in no way, shape, or form related to the field of recent years being discussed.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 10:06 AM
Dementieva was outpowering Serena in most of their rallies @ Wimbledon.

Safina, Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Azarenka, Bartoli, Petrova, Lisicki, Sharapova, Pennetta, Stosur, Wozniacki, Cirstea, all hit the ball w/ more powerful than 90% of the girls of the past.

And how'd you put Henin and Davenport in the old era? Both were world #1's during the 2000's.

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 10:07 AM
LOL Martina bunted the ball compared to Safina!?!? Martina had a much bigger and more reliable serve, a bigger forehand, those crushing volleys and overheads which were the best ever, returned with more authority and skill. Sukova also hits a much bigger serve, much bigger forehand, an agressive net game with some crushing smashes which Safina could only dream of. Safina hit a harder (not better but harder) backhand, that is it. Compared to Graf, Navratilova, Seles, Capriati especialy Safina power wise looks like she is playing lawn bowling, and yet that is the only thing Safina does well. Pretty sad that this is one of the so called best players in the World of today, especialy for those trying to argue some amazing power renaissance.

Capriati is NOT part of todays field or even todays era. She last played in 2004, her career spanned from 1991 to 2004. She is about 10 years older than players like Safina, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Jankovic, busted shouldered Sharapova, etc...She did play a number of years in the later years of her long career vs players who were actually in between her era and the current one- people like Venus, Serena, Dementieva, but that is it. It is a joke to include her as part of the current group.

You sound so bizarre why have you gone off the deep end?

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 10:09 AM
Graf sliced her backhand 90% of the time.

Who cares, even just her forehand alone would still blow the mediocre Russian and Serbian hacks in the top 10 today off the court in about 40 minutes.

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 10:09 AM
Dementieva was outpowering Serena in most of their rallies @ Wimbledon.

Safina, Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Azarenka, Bartoli, Petrova, Lisicki, Sharapova, Pennetta, Stosur, Wozniacki, Cirstea, all hit the ball w/ more powerful than 90% of the girls of the past.

And how'd you put Henin and Davenport in the old era? Both were world #1's during the 2000's, not the 90s.

Who knew he only meant people playing right this second? I consider Capriati and Davenport part of today's power era.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 10:09 AM
You sound so bizarre why have you gone off the deep end?

You are the one who is nuts. You need some new glasses. Dont you realize you are one of the only ones out there who doesnt think the current womens field completely sucks. There is a reason the WTA is in financial crisis at the moment.

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 10:10 AM
Who cares, even just her forehand alone would still blow the mediocre Russian and Serbian hacks in the top 10 today off the court in about 40 minutes.

Didn't graf have a lot of long matches with Sanchez Vicario? A Serbian hack like Jankovic might pose the same problems?

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 10:11 AM
You are the one who is nuts. You need some new glasses. Dont you realize you are one of the only ones out there who doesnt think the current womens field completely sucks. There is a reason the WTA is in financial crisis at the moment.

Everyone except you acknowledges that today's players with much more power than the 80's?

And the WTA has always sucked.

Cyan
08-10-2009, 10:12 AM
Graf in this weak era would win like 30 slams!

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 10:12 AM
Dementieva was outpowering Serena in most of their rallies @ Wimbledon.

Safina, Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Azarenka, Bartoli, Petrova, Lisicki, Sharapova, Pennetta, Stosur, Wozniacki, Cirstea, all hit the ball w/ more powerful than 90% of the girls of the past.

And how'd you put Henin and Davenport in the old era? Both were world #1's during the 2000's.

Dementieva played far above her normal level at Wimbledon, and I still disagree she was overpowering Serena. Serena ended the match with almost double the winners.

None of those players you mentioned are impressive power player at all, sorry. Almost everyone in the top 20 from 1991-2003 hit harder than them.

Henin and Davenport are not currently playing. I am talking about the "current" field of players, which retired players do not contribute to. Of course if Henin was still playing the womens field would be alot better than its current pitiful state. As for Davenport she is about 10 years older than most of todays top tenners anyway. She is closer in age to the Graf, Sanchez Vicario, and Sabatini generation than she is to most of todays players.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 10:14 AM
Didn't graf have a lot of long matches with Sanchez Vicario? A Serbian hack like Jankovic might pose the same problems?

LOL at comparing Jankovic to Sanchez Vicario. Sanchez Vicario does everything much better than JJ. I cant think of even one aspect of the game JJ is comparable, and in mental toughness she is about 10% Even Sanchez's shaky forehand is much better than the sh1tty forehand of JJ.

flying24
08-10-2009, 10:15 AM
Nobody has even really answered my earlier question. Apart from the Williams who are these great power players or super hard hitters today that are ushering in this scary power era of tennis. Is anyone even going to try and argue Safin, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Ivanovic, Jankovic, busted shouldered Maria are these amazing super power hitters who bring power to a new level compared to Graf, Seles, Davenport, Pierce, old Maria, Capriati, Henin, Lucic, early 2000s Dokic, and a bunch of others, LOL! The field today sucks, even the amazing power quota argument doesnt fly. There was even MUCH more power in the game 5, 10, 15, and 20 years ago than there is today. The last time there were less impressive power hitters in the womens game was at the latest back when there were last wood racquets. Well I wonder why then.

The only thing todays girls do well is hit hard, I agree with that, but they dont even do that particularly well. Dokic is about half the player she was when she was in the top 10 in the early 2000s when the Williams, Davenport, Capriati, and Henin at their peaks were on top, and she still was slugging it out and holding her own vs World #1 Safina in Australia. In her early 2000s form she would probably have powered Safina right off the court and be winning slams today, where at the time of her peak tennis she was a marginal top tenner for a bit.

Very well said. What are these idiots talking about the surge in power tennis today referring to, LOL! Todays womens field is not impressive in anyway, including even in power.

flying24
08-10-2009, 10:17 AM
Graf in this weak era would win like 30 slams!

If Graf of 1986-1996 was put in 2004-2014 probably the only players who would ever beat her is Serena or Venus once in awhile at Wimbledon, Serena once in awhile at the U.S Open, and Henin once in awhile at the French. She would probably end up winning say 35 out of 44 slams.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 10:17 AM
And the WTA has always sucked.

Seconded. Sukova? How many slams she got? Same amt as Safina, and less than Kuznetsova, yet you bring her up to show the power of the past era. lol.

All of the WTA of the past outside of Sanchez and Martinez and a handful of others were all Graf's, Navratilova's, and Evert's ducks, who folded anytime they came against these players in slam finals, outside of a few "flukes" as you call them.

Yet you pretend the WTA had so much depth back then, w/ Graf winning 22 slams, Evert making slam finals into her mid 30s, and Navratilova making slam finals into her late 30s. Yet there was so much more depth back then? Please.

navratilovafan
08-10-2009, 10:20 AM
Navratilova and Graf would both win many more slams vs todays field than they did even in their primes. Even an out of shape and uncommited to tennis Serena has won 3 of the last 4 slams due to the talentless field of worthless clowns surrounding her. Atleast Graf, Martina, Chris, Monica, had to be in shape while they dominated. Monica was unlucky to have her post stabbing return out of shape when she did instead of now. If her comeback had been 2006 in the same shape she would be winning multiple slams even in that shape probably.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 10:22 AM
Seconded. Sukova? How many slams she got? Same amt as Safina, and less than Kuznetsova, yet you bring her up to show the power of the past era. lol.

Sukova has beaten PRIME Martina in a slam semifinal. That alone already makes her superior to either Safina or Kuznetsova who couldnt have done that if they were given 200 chances to do so.

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 10:25 AM
Navratilova and Graf would both win many more slams vs todays field than they did even in their primes. Even an out of shape and uncommited to tennis Serena has won 3 of the last 4 slams due to the talentless field of worthless clowns surrounding her. Atleast Graf, Martina, Chris, Monica, had to be in shape while they dominated. Monica was unlucky to have her post stabbing return out of shape when she did instead of now. If her comeback had been 2006 in the same shape she would be winning multiple slams even in that shape probably.

Martina never faced this type of power. So just stop it please. You have NO IDEA how her game would have stood up.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 10:26 AM
Sukova has beaten PRIME Martina in a slam semifinal. That alone already makes her superior to either Safina or Kuznetsova who couldnt have done that if they were given 200 chances to do so.

Like I said, fluke.

If you can call Kuznetsova's 2 slams a fluke, I sure as hell can call one good win a fluke.

Cyan
08-10-2009, 10:26 AM
If Graf of 1986-1996 was put in 2004-2014 probably the only players who would ever beat her is Serena or Venus once in awhile at Wimbledon, Serena once in awhile at the U.S Open, and Henin once in awhile at the French. She would probably end up winning say 35 out of 44 slams.

Wouldn't surprise me.

The fact that Serena is overweight and a part-time tennis player and she is still piling up the slams says EVERYTHING about this era :oops:

Mick
08-10-2009, 10:29 AM
Wouldn't surprise me.

The fact that Serena is overweight and a part-time tennis player and she is still piling up the slams says EVERYTHING about this era :oops:

last week, espn classic showed the 2004 us open women's final match between capriati and serena w.
wow, serena was in good shape then, she looked totally different.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 10:30 AM
Helena Sukova

0 slams
2-17 vs Evert
6-26 vs Navratilova
1-21 vs Graf

Yeah, real great power of the past in the women's game. :roll:

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 10:31 AM
Like I said, fluke.

If you can call Kuznetsova's 2 slams a fluke, I sure as hell can call one good win a fluke.

OK Sukova not only beat a prime Martina in a slam semifinal, she was points from beating a prime Martina in another slam semifinal only a year and a half later, and destroyed a near prime Evert ranked #2 in the World in the U.S Open semis. She also beat grass court GOAT Navratilova in the Eastborne final (a tournament Martina dominated) just before Martina won her record tieing 8th Wimbledon.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 10:32 AM
Helena Sukova

0 slams
2-17 vs Evert
6-26 vs Navratilova
1-21 vs Graf

Yeah, real great power of the past in the women's game. :roll:

Safina's record vs those players would be:

0-17 vs Evert
0-26 vs Navratilova
0-21 vs Graf

flying24
08-10-2009, 10:34 AM
Martina never faced this type of power. So just stop it please. You have NO IDEA how her game would have stood up.

LOL you are still pushing your power delusion. Like GSF said earlier this thread there is no impressive power in todays womens game outside the out of shape Williams sisters. And no Capriati and Davenport who could be the moms of some of the women on tour today and will never play another professional tennis match again are not part of todays game. Capriati even played more matches vs Navratilova than she did vs most of todays top 10.

flying24
08-10-2009, 10:36 AM
Wouldn't surprise me.

The fact that Serena is overweight and a part-time tennis player and she is still piling up the slams says EVERYTHING about this era :oops:

Yeah that does say it all. Serena of 1999-2003 would destroy the Serena of 2007-2009, yet she is winning slams at an even faster rate today than she did then. :shock:

allcourter2008
08-10-2009, 10:36 AM
Safina's record vs those players would be:

0-17 vs Evert
0-26 vs Navratilova
0-21 vs Graf

You're to generous.

The records would be:


-10 - infinity vs Evert
-100 - infinity vs Navratilova
-infinity - infinity vs Graf

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 10:37 AM
OK Sukova not only beat a prime Martina in a slam semifinal, she was points from beating a prime Martina in another slam semifinal only a year and a half later, and destroyed a near prime Evert ranked #2 in the World in the U.S Open semis. She also beat grass court GOAT Navratilova in the Eastborne final (a tournament Martina dominated) just before Martina won her record tieing 8th Wimbledon.

And yet she has 0 slams to show for it...:-?:cry::cry:

Sukova and Lucic. 0 slam titles combined. That's who you choose to display the power of the women's game of the past.

As I said, all of the WTA outside of a handful of players were Graf's, Navratilova's, and Evert's ducks back in the day. To make it as if the WTA back then was some uber competitive field where everyone and anyone could win slams is only fooling yourself. Sure those players were good, but Graf, Navratilova, and Evert were on a whole other level from them, thus your argument about the weak WTA field now is ignoring the fact that the WTA has never been a bastion of depth, at least not compared to the ATP. WTA tennis has never been that deep to make it seem like all the players of the past were 10+ time slam winners is biased and lying.

thalivest
08-10-2009, 10:42 AM
A past player having 0 slams means nothing. In the past those players faced Graf, Evert, and Navratilova at their peaks for 10+ years and great on all surfaces. Todays players get the benefit of the Williams only being at their peak 2-4 years, the Williams hiatus of about 3 years, Henin retiring at 25, Venus being a weak slow surface player, Henin a weak grass court player, and Serena even being a relatively weak clay court player. Yet some of them still cant win a slam even vs that. Many players past who didnt win a slam back then would win a slam now, some of them multiple. It is the ******* argument, you cant win slams if someone else is winning them all. Graf, Navratilova, Evert throughout their long primes were virtually unbeatable on all surfaces and thus others couldnt win slams. Such a situation does not exist today and hasnt for years.

TMF
08-10-2009, 11:02 AM
While I agree Graf is a better player than Serena, but Graf would never, ever win 22 slams in this era. Not even close. The players today are much stronger and they can serve 120+ mph. Graf was great from the baseline, but her peers never hit the balls as heavy as these players today. Plus, Graf one handed backhand would be liable against the players with 2 handed backhand which has more power and offensive. We saw what Graf was struggling against Seles two handed backhand, it was one area where Seles had a huge advantage. The players today have even more potent backhand than Seles.

I think Graf would still be a force in this era, but many of her ridiculous records she sets in her heyday would never be possible in this era.

lambielspins
08-10-2009, 11:11 AM
Graf would never, ever win 22 slams in this era.

I agree. She would win well over 30. 22 would not be nearly enough slams for Graf in this lame era of no talent outside of Serena and Venus on grass. Wth someone like a prime Graf around Serena's last slam title would have come back in 2003 also.

CountryHillbilly
08-10-2009, 11:16 AM
A past player having 0 slams means nothing. In the past those players faced Graf, Evert, and Navratilova at their peaks for 10+ years and great on all surfaces. Todays players get the benefit of the Williams only being at their peak 2-4 years, the Williams hiatus of about 3 years, Henin retiring at 25, Venus being a weak slow surface player, Henin a weak grass court player, and Serena even being a relatively weak clay court player. Yet some of them still cant win a slam even vs that.

So, whose fault is it that Williamses suck on clay? Kuznetsova won the French this year, Safina played in 2 French finals. They seem like contenders on clay to me. Judging by your avatar, I would guess you have some respect for that surface.

Venus can only win Wimbledon, and sucks on all other surfaces. Safina has a chance at clay and hardcourts. And she may improve in the future. Based on this year's slams, Safina is little better than Venus, and people still put her down as a joke and treat Venus as royalty. Even Kaptain Karl the mod did it.

allcourter2008
08-10-2009, 11:41 AM
The 5 best players are probably worse these days, but the average top100 player is much better nowadays.
It's still very low quality compared to the ATP.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-10-2009, 11:45 AM
Based on this year's slams, Safina is little better than Venus, and people still put her down as a joke and treat Venus as royalty.

Probably due to Safina's utter failure on the big stage every, single time; Venus--though she did not win this year's Wimbledon--still generates respect and expectation on the most storied surface in the sport, as she is the greatest grass-courter of her generation. On the opposite end, Safina was hyped as the next great thing but the only "title" she posesses is being a frequent loser in slam finals. Oh, that--and the slamless #1 status.

Mick
08-10-2009, 11:48 AM
i think safina's weaknesses are her unreliable serve and court movement. compare those two areas to those of serena and venus and you know why the williams sisters own her.

TMF
08-10-2009, 11:48 AM
I agree. She would win well over 30. 22 would not be nearly enough slams for Graf in this lame era of no talent outside of Serena and Venus on grass. Wth someone like a prime Graf around Serena's last slam title would have come back in 2003 also.

Come on, letís be a little objective here. While Graf will still be the best player in this era, but likely she would win about 15 slams. Keep in mind she won 22 slams when prime Seles wasnít around in the 90s.

CountryHillbilly
08-10-2009, 11:56 AM
Probably due to Safina's utter failure on the big stage every, single time; Venus--though she did not win this year's Wimbledon--still generates respect and expectation on the most storied surface in the sport, as she is the greatest grass-courter of her generation. On the opposite end, Safina was hyped as the next great thing but the only "title" she posesses is being a frequent loser in slam finals. Oh, that--and the slamless #1 status.

Well, Venus, now that she lost Wimby, is far less successful than Safina this year. Safina has 2 finals and 1 semi. She got bagel-breadsticked by Venus on her worst and Venus' best surface.

Venus is the best grass player of her generation but I don't see why she should get more respect RIGHT NOW than Safina. I would withhold judgement on Safina until US Open. If she fails there, then OK she's a joke.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 12:09 PM
Venus can only win Wimbledon, and sucks on all other surfaces. Safina has a chance at clay and hardcourts. And she may improve in the future. Based on this year's slams, Safina is little better than Venus, and people still put her down as a joke and treat Venus as royalty. Even Kaptain Karl the mod did it.

Venus has won the U.S Open twice. She has lost to eventual Champion 4 times since- Serena in 2002 final, Clijsters in 2005 quarters, Henin in 2007 semis, and Serena in last years quarters. Also lost to eventual champion Davenport in the 98 semis, and Hingis in the 97 final, and in 99 would have beaten either Davenport or Serena probably (despite that Serena beat Hingis after she lost to her) but lost a close semi to Hingis. She has been an outstanding performer at the U.S Open for many years, probably unlucky to not win 3 or 4 instead of only 2. She has won the big Miami event many times, I dont remember the exact # now but atleast 3 times. She won the WTA Championships last year, and Olympic singles gold on hard courts. OK right now she isnt so good on slower surfaces anymore, I would agree on that point. However in her prime she did reach an Australian and French Open final, made many other semis and quarters in Australia, and won multiple tier 1 titles on clay. Currently she is not great on slow surfaces any longer, but she is still the one to beat outside of Serena on any medium to faster surface, not just grass.

Comparing her to Safina, Venus has already proven herself. She is a tennis legend and one of the all time greats at Wimbledon. People arent howling for her to be ranked over Safina the way they are Serena, given her failure to defend her title at Wimbledon (due to injury and a determined Serena) making her also slamless and the last 12 months and her overall record people can understand her ranking moreso than Serena's with all her slam wins. However that doesnt mean it isnt easily understandable why she is still far more respected than Safina.

CountryHillbilly
08-10-2009, 12:19 PM
Comparing her to Safina, Venus has already proven herself. She is a tennis legend and one of the all time greats at Wimbledon. People arent howling for her to be ranked over Safina the way they are Serena, given her failure to defend her title at Wimbledon (due to injury and a determined Serena) making her also slamless and the last 12 months and her overall record people can understand her ranking moreso than Serena's with all her slam wins. However that doesnt mean it isnt easily understandable why she is still far more respected than Safina.

OK, I know all that. But right now she can't win anything other than Wimby. Outside of grass she's not a contender. Safina can go deep in all tournies and she deserves some respect for that. Murray and Djokovic are more respected right now than Safin and there is nothing wrong with that.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 12:26 PM
GSF, you still had no response for my post a/b the depth of women's tennis over the years.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3786898&postcount=75

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 12:33 PM
GSF, you still had no response for my post a/b the depth of women's tennis over the years.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3786898&postcount=75

There never has been. This overrating of the 80's and 90's laughable.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 01:16 PM
And yet she has 0 slams to show for it...

Sukova and Lucic. 0 slam titles combined. That's who you choose to display the power of the women's game of the past.

As I said, all of the WTA outside of a handful of players were Graf's, Navratilova's, and Evert's ducks back in the day. To make it as if the WTA back then was some uber competitive field where everyone and anyone could win slams is only fooling yourself. Sure those players were good, but Graf, Navratilova, and Evert were on a whole other level from them, thus your argument about the weak WTA field now is ignoring the fact that the WTA has never been a bastion of depth, at least not compared to the ATP. WTA tennis has never been that deep to make it seem like all the players of the past were 10+ time slam winners is biased and lying.


I never said Lucic was a great player, in fact overall she is an even worse player than todays top players. She was the late 90s version of Vaidisova, a complete waste of talent. All I said was that she hit the ball harder than any of todays top power players, outside of the Williams sisters, and if you have ever seen her play you would agree with me.

So what if Sukova doesnt have a slam. She is probably the best player to now win a slam. Who are the players that she has lost to in slam finals- prime Evert, prime Navratilova, prime Graf, and prime Graf again. In 1984 Australian Open she beat peak Navratilova to make the final and lost to Chris in 3 sets. In 1986 U.S Open she trounced Evert in the U.S Open semis and lost to Martina in the final. In 1989 Australian Open she beat Navratilova who was still #2 in the World and lost to Graf in the final. In 1993 U.S Open she beat both Navratilova and Sanchez Vicario but lost to Graf. She always had to come up with more than 1 huge win to win the title, 1 wasnt evn good enough. Do you reallly think she wouldnt win several slams if she played today with the the likes of Myskina, Kuznetsova twice, Ivanovic, all winning slams in the last 5 years. Also just try to imagine Kuznetsova or Ivanovic (never mind the still slamless hacks like Safina or Jankovic) winning even 1 slam back then if they had to post back to back wins over atleast 2 of Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Seles close to their best.

drwood
08-10-2009, 01:21 PM
OK, I know all that. But right now she can't win anything other than Wimby. Outside of grass she's not a contender. Safina can go deep in all tournies and she deserves some respect for that. Murray and Djokovic are more respected right now than Safin and there is nothing wrong with that.

Venus is always a contender at the US Open -- usually she loses to the eventual champ. In the past few years, its happened before the final, which is why people don't notice (last yr -- 2 tiebreaks vs. Serena, 07 SF vs. Henin, 06 DNP, 05 QF vs. Clijsters, 03 DNP)

Venus on HC is VERY underrated on these boards.

Lionheart392
08-10-2009, 01:26 PM
Venus is always a contender at the US Open -- usually she loses to the eventual champ. In the past few years, its happened before the final, which is why people don't notice (last yr -- 2 tiebreaks vs. Serena, 07 SF vs. Henin, 06 DNP, 05 QF vs. Clijsters, 03 DNP)

Venus on HC is VERY underrated on these boards.

IMO she seems like a contender but it's not just misfortune that she hasn't won since 2001. She can't keep it together for 2 whole weeks any more except at Wimbledon. She'll never win the US Open again.

drwood
08-10-2009, 01:26 PM
Martina never faced this type of power. So just stop it please. You have NO IDEA how her game would have stood up.

Exactly. If you want to see how Martina would do against the modern power game, look at the her 1991 Wimbledon QF match.

grafrules
08-10-2009, 01:27 PM
Venus on hard courts is unlucky. In 1998-1999 she was losing to her then nemisis Davenport in nearly all the hard court slams. She was doing pretty well vs Hingis on hard courts, and very well vs everyone else, so would have had a great shot of winning otherwise. She was injured at the 2002 Australian Open or probably would have won, then lost to Serena at her career peak in the next 2 had court slam finals, and missed the 2003 U.S Open with an injury. She was atleast the 2nd best player of the 2005 U.S Open, 2007 U.S Open, and 2008 U.S Open but lost out to the eventual winners in tight matches. 2005 quarterfinal she should have won, she was up a set an 4-2 but Clijsters fought back. She would have easily beaten Maria who she had just spanked at Wimbledon and an aging Pierce in the final. In 2007 if Henin having her best year ever wasnt around she would have won, Serena would have been a close match but she was in better form and shape than Serena at that event and Kuznetsova would have been a breeze. In 2008 she would have easily beaten Safina, Jankovic would have been a tougher match but Venus would probably have come through.

drwood
08-10-2009, 01:27 PM
IMO she seems like a contender but it's not just misfortune that she hasn't won since 2001. She can't keep it together for 2 whole weeks any more except at Wimbledon. She'll never win the US Open again.

While its unlikely, I disagree...she was DEFINITELY the second-best player last year to Serena. All it takes is a good match against Serena (unlikely, but possible) and she can handle anyone else. Plus with her ranking as high as it is now, she won't face any real threats until the SF.

grafrules
08-10-2009, 01:28 PM
Exactly. If you want to see how Martina would do against the modern power game, look at the her 1991 Wimbledon QF match.

LOL, Martina was 34 years old then. Let me know how Venus, Serena, and this eras other top players are doing at 34. Heck Henin one of this generations greatest players is RETIRED at 25. It was remarkable Martina was still competitive and even posting occasional wins over Graf, Seles, and everyone else into her mid 30s. Anyway I remember that match and Martina played a horrible match that day, served horribly especialy. 4 times out of 5 even a granny Martina would beat Capriati on grass. Martina won 3 slams in her 30s. I would be very impressed if anyone ever again wins 3 slams in their 30s.

Grass_for_cows
08-10-2009, 01:28 PM
This maybe more of a perception issue but Venus always seems to be injured for hard court events. Either she goes in injured or she gets injured in it or both.

drwood
08-10-2009, 01:29 PM
Venus on hard courts is unlucky. In 1998-1999 she was losing to her then nemisis Davenport in nearly all the hard court slams. She was doing pretty well vs Hingis on hard courts, and very well vs everyone else, so would have had a great shot of winning otherwise. She was injured at the 2002 Australian Open or probably would have won, then lost to Serena at her career peak in the next 2 had court slam finals, and missed the 2003 U.S Open with an injury. She was atleast the 2nd best player of the 2005 U.S Open, 2007 U.S Open, and 2008 U.S Open but lost out to the eventual winners in tight matches. 2005 quarterfinal she should have won, she was up a set an 4-2 but Clijsters fought back. She would have easily beaten Maria who she had just spanked at Wimbledon and an aging Pierce in the final. In 2007 if Henin having her best year ever wasnt around she would have won, Serena would have been a close match but she was in better form and shape than Serena at that event and Kuznetsova would have been a breeze. In 2008 she would have easily beaten Safina, Jankovic would have been a tougher match but Venus would probably have come through.

Completely agree...it would be nice to see Venus show up at the Aus Open, though -- she really hasn't done so since 2003.

Lionheart392
08-10-2009, 01:29 PM
While its unlikely, I disagree...she was DEFINITELY the second-best player last year to Serena. All it takes is a good match against Serena (unlikely, but possible) and she can handle anyone else. Plus with her ranking as high as it is now, she won't face any real threats until the SF.

What exactly happened in that match with Serena last year? I never believed the 'they fix their matches' conspiracy until I saw that. It did look like Venus was making unforced errors deliberately. She's not a choker so I just don't understand.

grafrules
08-10-2009, 01:32 PM
Completely agree...it would be nice to see Venus show up at the Aus Open, though -- she really hasn't done so since 2003.

Yes I agree. Venus can play great tennis on rebound ace when she wants to. 2003 was playing some sick tennis, it was unfortunate she had a bit of a mental block with her sister by then. I remember her overwhelming and destroying a nearly prime Henin in the semis, as well as a very in form Hantuchova in the quarters.

I remember in 1998 her great match with Davenport, she just overwhelmed Davenport- that years top hard court player, in the first set but couldnt keep up that level, still nearly won in 2 sets. She would have been in the final with Hingis for sure that year, as Martinez would have never beaten her in the semis (Martinez beat Davenport but was a nemisis of Davenport over the years).

I also remember in 2002 her match with Seles was great, even though she was injured. Monica played one of her best post stabbing matches to beat her, and even injured Venus was hitting the ball great and moving pretty well. It was probably the match of the tournament.

grafrules
08-10-2009, 01:34 PM
What exactly happened in that match with Serena last year? I never believed the 'they fix their matches' conspiracy until I saw that. It did look like Venus was making unforced errors deliberately. She's not a choker so I just don't understand.

I think she just got nervous. She would have tied Serena in slam titles had she won the Open. Given the field and draw of last years Open, and the form of both sisters, I think both knew that was the real final. It would have been the first time in a long time Venus would have been equal or ahead of Serena in slam singles titles had she won, I think she probably thought of that and got very tight and Serena dug in at those moments like she always does.

drwood
08-10-2009, 01:34 PM
LOL, Martina was 34 years old then. Let me know how Venus, Serena, and this eras other top players are doing at 34. Heck Henin one of this generations greatest players is RETIRED at 25. It was remarkable Martina was still competitive and even posting occasional wins over Graf, Seles, and everyone else into her mid 30s. Anyway I remember that match and Martina played a horrible match that day, served horribly especialy. 4 times out of 5 even a granny Martina would beat Capriati on grass.

You just said that Sukova's win over Martina at the 1993 US Open was an example of her beating a legend in a slam, and Martina was 36 then.

And Martina served horribly b/c Capriati destroyed her on the second serve return (forcing Martina to go for more, thus the double faults), and Capriati wasn't really that great. I remember that match as well. Martina did NOT do well against power at all...her last Slam (1990 Wimbledon) she got a gift draw with all the power players in the other half (Seles, Graf) and only having to beat the perenially underachieving Sabatini to make the final, where Zina Garrison had done the work for her by taking out prime Seles and prime Graf on grass.

Martina would win a ton of slams today, but it wouldn't be that different from the 18 she already has. She's a lot like Edberg -- didn't do well once power crept into the game and exposed the weakness of her second serve.

NamRanger
08-10-2009, 01:41 PM
Just to let you know, Henin was not going to lose to Venus Williams that day at the USO 2007. If Henin is not there, Venus wins that so easy. Henin was playing at a level of tennis that tournament that she had never reached in her entire life.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQzNhvaoNAA&feature=related



In fact, that was probably the best match at the USO on either the men's or the women's side.

grafrules
08-10-2009, 01:42 PM
You just said that Sukova's win over Martina at the 1993 US Open was an example of her beating a legend in a slam, and Martina was 36 then.

I didnt say anything about the 1993 U.S Open. I agree Sukova's win at the 1993 U.S Open wasnt anything that impressive. Her win over Sanchez Vicario in the semis was a bigger win in fact at the time. She did have some big wins and performances in the 80s that GSF referred to though.

And Martina served horribly b/c Capriati destroyed her on the second serve return (forcing Martina to go for more, thus the double faults), and Capriati wasn't really that great. I remember that match as well. Martina did NOT do well against power at all...her last Slam (1990 Wimbledon) she got a gift draw with all the power players in the other half (Seles, Graf) and only having to beat the perenially underachieving Sabatini to make the final, where Zina Garrison had done the work for her by taking out prime Seles and prime Graf on grass.

The thing is Martina was well into her 30s by then which you seem to be igoring altogether. Do you really expect any player to be at their best in their mid 30s. Come on now that is a bit crazy. It might be that Martina would have had more trouble with the power of Graf, Seles, Williams sisters, and others but her losses at 34 and 35 years old shouldnt be valid examples of that. It was a remarkable feat for Martina to be that competitive and still playing at such a high level into her mid 30s. Capriati isnt that impressive a grass court player. She couldnt even beat a pre-prime Henin on grass, and has never made a Wimbledon final, which means she isnt even as good as someone like Henin on grass (and Henin in turn isnt even a top 5 player of her generation on grass as she is beyond Venus, Serena, Davenport, Mauresmo, and Sharapova).
Martina in her prime would school someone like Capriati on grass.

As for Wimbledon 1990 I dont even know why you even mention Seles, it seems you have a vastly inflated opinion of her grass court abilites. Monica is not in the league of Navratilova or Graf on grass. Had Monica converted her match point with Zina, Graf would have just destroyed Monica in the semis like she did the other two times they played on grass. Monica of course wouldnt have even played Martina but if they had Martina of Wimbledon 1990 also would have destroyed her. Sabatini is a tougher opponent on grass than Seles in fact so playing Sabatini in the semis of Wimbledon is a tougher draw than playing Seles. As for Graf, as you can tell by my username I am a Graf fan but Graf wasnt in her top form at that Wimbledon and Martina was. Martina probably would have beaten Graf in that years final had it happened.

Martina would win a ton of slams today, but it wouldn't be that different from the 18 she already has. She's a lot like Edberg -- didn't do well once power crept into the game and exposed the weakness of her second serve.

Like I mentioned Martina even in her mid 30s was posting wins over Graf and Seles. In early 1993 she was 36 years old and had a win over post Graf and Seles. Graf didnt start beating her regularly until she was 31 years old, at age 30 Martina crushed young powerful Graf in their two biggest finals of the year. So how she wouldnt be able to handle power in her prime is beyond me.

Sartorius
08-10-2009, 01:55 PM
Just to let you know, Henin was not going to lose to Venus Williams that day at the USO 2007. If Henin is not there, Venus wins that so easy. Henin was playing at a level of tennis that tournament that she had never reached in her entire life.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQzNhvaoNAA&feature=related



In fact, that was probably the best match at the USO on either the men's or the women's side.

Ahhh... What a great match that was indeed.

She also beat Serena at the QF in the previous match.

NamRanger
08-10-2009, 01:57 PM
Ahhh... What a great match that was indeed.

She also beat Serena at the QF in the previous match.


In fact the USO 2007 that year produced probably the best tennis the WTA has seen in a very, very, very long time.

drwood
08-10-2009, 02:01 PM
Like I mentioned Martina even in her mid 30s was posting wins over Graf and Seles. In early 1993 she was 36 years old and had a win over post Graf and Seles. Graf didnt start beating her regularly until she was 31 years old, at age 30 Martina crushed young powerful Graf in their two biggest finals of the year. So how she wouldnt be able to handle power in her prime is beyond me.

Martina never handled power return of servers well -- ever. That's not to say that she wouldn't win her fair share of majors. But none of the players she faced on a regular basis except Seles were great returners off both wings. Graf was a phenomenal mover after the first shot, but she could never consistently hit BH return winners. Even someone like Capriati, who obviously was never in Graf's league (especially on grass), but was able to consistently pound BH return winners was able to beat Martina on grass -- the same Martina that made the Wimbledon SF the next 2 years and the final 3 yrs later.

Its a matchup thing. The fields of the early 80s other than Martina,Chris and Mandlikova were extremely weak, just like now.

But the people who could consistently beat Martina would be those who could dominate off the first ball on the return -- candidates: Serena, Venus, Davenport in their primes -- I'm not saying they'd win more slams than Martina, but their H2H against her would be very respectable.

To me, the depth of women's tennis was at its zenith in the early 90s (1987-1993 period) before Seles was stabbed -- the fields of today and the early 80s are disappointing.

Martina's prime came along at the right era -- right after the prime of players who could have hurt her regularly (Billie Jean King, Evert, Goolagong) and right before the power game become commonplace.

grafrules
08-10-2009, 03:35 PM
Martina never handled power return of servers well -- ever. That's not to say that she wouldn't win her fair share of majors. But none of the players she faced on a regular basis except Seles were great returners off both wings. Graf was a phenomenal mover after the first shot, but she could never consistently hit BH return winners. Even someone like Capriati, who obviously was never in Graf's league (especially on grass), but was able to consistently pound BH return winners was able to beat Martina on grass -- the same Martina that made the Wimbledon SF the next 2 years and the final 3 yrs later.

While on that surface that makes sense, how can you say Martina never handled power returners well ever when in her prime she didnt face any as yourself have suggested. Lets say Martina's rough prime was 1978-1987. There were almost no power returners though, so how can we say she would or wouldnt havent handled the. It is all speculation really. Can you think of an example of a power return of server she faced and had trouble with anywhere near her prime.

I dont understand how you can draw any conclusions from matches Martina played from ages 33-37. It is completely unrealistic to expect any player to be anywhere near their best at that age. Do you really think Martina of Wimbledon 1991 is anything like Martina at Wimbledon from 1978-1987. Just because Martina was still making semis or finals at that age doesnt mean she was near her best. She is probably the greatest ever female grass court player so even well past her prime she can post good results, particularly as you say the top 3 or so are much better than the rest so only the true queens of tennis like Graf and Seles consistently put her down even well past her best. Remember in those later years she even lost to Linda Harvey Wild and Conchita Martinez (a power return of server, LOL) on grass.

Yes you are right when she played Graf she could serve to the backhand and feel confident she wouldnt get hurt right off the return. Graf did eventually become very comfortable hitting an agressive and consistent topspin backhand passing shot which is when she turned the tables on Martina and began beating her regularly, but pretty much never will you see a topspin drive on the return of serve on the backhand side from Steffi.

Its a matchup thing. The fields of the early 80s other than Martina,Chris and Mandlikova were extremely weak, just like now.

No argument there. The 70s were actually a much deeper field than the 80s IMO.

But the people who could consistently beat Martina would be those who could dominate off the first ball on the return -- candidates: Serena, Venus, Davenport in their primes -- I'm not saying they'd win more slams than Martina, but their H2H against her would be very respectable.

The trio of Serena, Venus, and Davenport in their primes hit the ball so incredibly hard from all parts of the game, at all parts of the game, they would give every women in history massive trouble. However all 3 of those players had relatively short prime due to injuries and other factors (Davenport early career motivation, Venus and Serena off court distractions/interests). Of course that trio would post some wins over Martina, nobody is saying Martina would win every slam over 10 years. Every women in history would lose some matches and slams in any other era, there is no thing as the bionic superwomen.

To me, the depth of women's tennis was at its zenith in the early 90s (1987-1993 period) before Seles was stabbed -- the fields of today and the early 80s are disappointing.

Yes I agree there. Around the same time as the Seles stabbing, Martina began to fall far off even her 1988-early 1993 level, Sabatini was never the same player again after her 93 French Open debacle (had already been declining slightly before that), Capriati was stagnant and burning out. It really suffered in the aftermath where it was really only Graf and Sanchez Vicario left, with Pierce and Novotna as inconsistent and unpredictabe spoilers, and Martinez very consistent but not good enough to win big titles even on her favorite surface of clay (her Wimbledon title on her worst surface was a fluke).

Martina's prime came along at the right era -- right after the prime of players who could have hurt her regularly (Billie Jean King, Evert, Goolagong) and right before the power game become commonplace.

I agree in a way Martina was fortunate. Like I said IMO the 70s was actually a deeper field than the 80s. She was fortunate to never have Court, King, or Goolagong to face on grass and faster surfaces. Court and King probably would be tougher matchups for her on those surfaces than Chris was, while Goolagong would be a bigger threat than say Hana was. Still I am surprised to hear you say you think Chris was past her prime by the time Martina began her prime. I must admit I have never heard that viewpoint before. You are aware Chris is only 2 years older than Martina right, and yes I am aware that there is much more than ages that determine a players prime.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 09:56 PM
I never said Lucic was a great player, in fact overall she is an even worse player than todays top players. She was the late 90s version of Vaidisova, a complete waste of talent. All I said was that she hit the ball harder than any of todays top power players, outside of the Williams sisters, and if you have ever seen her play you would agree with me.

So what if Sukova doesnt have a slam. She is probably the best player to now win a slam. Who are the players that she has lost to in slam finals- prime Evert, prime Navratilova, prime Graf, and prime Graf again. In 1984 Australian Open she beat peak Navratilova to make the final and lost to Chris in 3 sets. In 1986 U.S Open she trounced Evert in the U.S Open semis and lost to Martina in the final. In 1989 Australian Open she beat Navratilova who was still #2 in the World and lost to Graf in the final. In 1993 U.S Open she beat both Navratilova and Sanchez Vicario but lost to Graf. She always had to come up with more than 1 huge win to win the title, 1 wasnt evn good enough. Do you reallly think she wouldnt win several slams if she played today with the the likes of Myskina, Kuznetsova twice, Ivanovic, all winning slams in the last 5 years. Also just try to imagine Kuznetsova or Ivanovic (never mind the still slamless hacks like Safina or Jankovic) winning even 1 slam back then if they had to post back to back wins over atleast 2 of Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Seles close to their best.

Still, you didn't answer my query. How is the WTA of yesterday so much stronger and deeper than the WTA of today, when everyone outside of a few players were Graf's. Navratilova's, and Evert's whipping girls. Almost everyone has a -10/-15/-20 even w/l record vs Graf/Navratilova/Evert. That's embarassing, and shows the lack of the depth you speak so proudly of the past era for possessing.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 10:15 PM
Still, you didn't answer my query. How is the WTA of yesterday so much stronger and deeper than the WTA of today, when everyone outside of a few players were Graf's. Navratilova's, and Evert's whipping girls. Almost everyone has a -10/-15/-20 even w/l record vs Graf/Navratilova/Evert. That's embarassing, and shows the lack of the depth you speak so proudly of the past era for possessing.

How so. You are a ******* who loves to trumpet how Roddick, Hewitt, Blake (LOL) and company are amazing players who just are back from winning anything really by Federer, and their complete whitewash head to heads with Roger speak nothing against them, just that god Roger is so unbeatable. So why wouldnt that also be true of Graf and Navratilova, the 2 greatest female players in tennis history according to nearly everyone.

Arafel
08-10-2009, 10:22 PM
If you want proof of why the WTA is currently weak, look what a just returned to the tour Clijsters did to Bartoli tonight. In her first match back on the tour, Clijsters owned the match. Davenport did much the same a few years ago. Do you think that if Martina had retired at age 29 and then come back a few years later to face the women of the time she'd be on the fast track to being considered a Slam contender right away, with Graf, Seles, and Sabatini there? Do you think Evert could have quit in 81 and come back in 83 ready to challenge the top women of the day?

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 10:28 PM
If you want proof of why the WTA is currently weak, look what a just returned to the tour Clijsters did to Bartoli tonight. In her first match back on the tour, Clijsters owned the match. Davenport did much the same a few years ago. Do you think that if Martina had retired at age 29 and then come back a few years later to face the women of the time she'd be on the fast track to being considered a Slam contender right away, with Graf, Seles, and Sabatini there? Do you think Evert could have quit in 81 and come back in 83 ready to challenge the top women of the day?

I woud love to see Clijsters win the U.S Open to really drive home a point further the state of the womens tour. If it were not for the Williams sisters, especialy Serena, I would actually probably pick her to win the U.S Open even though it will only be her 2nd or 3rd event back after nearly 3 years off. How about nearly 40 year old Kimiko Date after 13 years off winning sets off top 10 players. This is someone who in her prime in the mid 20s was just a 6th-15th ranked kind of player, on average a regular round of 16 finisher in slams who maxed out with 3 slam semis.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 10:42 PM
How so. You are a ******* who loves to trumpet how Roddick, Hewitt, Blake (LOL) and company are amazing players who just are back from winning anything really by Federer, and their complete whitewash head to heads with Roger speak nothing against them, just that god Roger is so unbeatable. So why wouldnt that also be true of Graf and Navratilova, the 2 greatest female players in tennis history according to nearly everyone.

You still haven't told me how the women's field was somehow deeper back then than it is now, when everyone back then, even the top tenners, were routinely beaten down by Graf, Seles, Navratilova, and Evert, outside of Sanchez-Vicario, Martinez, and a few others, no one ever stepped up when they faced the top players and routinely choked even when they had the chances to win. (see: J. Novotona) So tell me again how Novotona, Sukova, Mandlinkova, etc would win 10+ slams in this era, when they couldn't beat Graf and co more than a handful of times. Yet we are to believe this is due to the supreme dominance of Graf and co? These girls were ducks, who'd be lucky to win 2+ slams in any era past or present.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 11:14 PM
You still haven't told me how the women's field was somehow deeper back then than it is now, when everyone back then, even the top tenners, were routinely beaten down by Graf, Seles, Navratilova, and Evert, outside of Sanchez-Vicario, Martinez, and a few others, no one ever stepped up when they faced the top players and routinely choked even when they had the chances to win. (see: J. Novotona) So tell me again how Novotona, Sukova, Mandlinkova, etc would win 10+ slams in this era, when they couldn't beat Graf and co more than a handful of times. Yet we are to believe this is due to the supreme dominance of Graf and co? These girls were ducks, who'd be lucky to win 2+ slams in any era past or present.

More ridiculous hyperbole. I never once implied Novotna or Sukova types would win 10+ majors today. They would have a better shot of winning some majors today though however, and are still better players than todays top players outside the Williams, and they are both better players than Kuznetsova who lucked her way to 2 slams in this Open weakish era somehow. For the record I think Mandlikova would have gone on to win alot more than the 4 majors she won today if she were born in say 1986ish like most of todays top 10 instead. Mandlikova has beaten Evert or Navratilova a total SEVEN times in slams, and she beat Graf the only time she ever played her in a slam, so basically facing 2 and a quarter of that trio (since she barely faced any of Graf) she managed 8 slam wins over them. Let me know when any of todays top players post that many wins over the Williams sisters in a slam, or remind me again how many times Kuznetsova, Jankovic, Ivanovic, Dementieva, Safina, combined beat Henin in a slam before she retired (ok I will make it easy for you, ZERO). Even Sukova the so called duck has beaten Navratilova and Evert a combined 4 times in slam events.

The fact you use Martinez as a rare example and yet mock Sabatini and Novotna shows your lack of knowledge on tennis of the time period. Pierce, Novotna, and Sabatini were far more dangerous and challenging 1 or 2 slam winner types than Conchita Martinez who is a much better example of a pigeon who was owned completely by Graf and Seles than those other 3. By the way 30 year old Pierce way past her prime after years of injuries made 3 huge finals (French, U.S Open, WTA Championships) in 2005. The 2005 field was actually much better than the 2009 field also, LOL!

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 11:22 PM
The thing about the current WTA is if Henin and Clijsters had never retired, Maria didnt have her shoulder totally busted up, if Davenport and Capriati were actually part of this era as pmerk implied rather than born in 1976, the current WTA wouldnt be so bad. You add those players to the Williams sisters and have the second rate Russians and Serbs near the very top now put in their proper places behind that whole group then things wouldnt be looking so bad. However of course that isnt the case. Most of the few people like pmerk, jamesblakefan, and others defending the current WTA are having to resort to retired players who were pro in the early 90s and who are even closer to Steffi Graf's birthday than Dinara Safina or Svetlana Kuznetsova's; or players who took early retirement or are virtually out of commision by injury now.

I actually dont feel the WTA was bad this whole decade. From 2000-2003 it was extremely strong in fact. The last 2-3 years have been the absolute worst, and that is what constitutes the current "field" to anyone with a brain.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 11:27 PM
Graf, Evert, and Navratilova combined for 32 of the 40 slams played in the 80s.

Yet you state this era (80s) is so much deeper than it is now. Tell me again, when does it go from these girls being so great (which I don't doubt that they are) to the rest of the field also being a bunch of clowns?

Between 1990-1996, Graf, Seles won 23 of the 28 slams played. Again, tell me at what pt where it goes from being these players being so great to the rest of the field being a bunch of ducks?

My pt is, WTA has never been so deep, and to make it as though the lack of depth in today's game is an anomaly is fudging the facts quite a bit.

I'm not doubting that Graf and Navratilova and Evert are better than today's top players, I'd be a fool to do so. But the fallacy comes in where you hype all of the women of the past as greats, when they were all basically ducks and whipping girls in the big matches (i.e. slam finals, if they even made it that far)

tennisfan25
08-10-2009, 11:30 PM
does anyone know, can you send an individual message to members on this discussion? thanks!

tennisfan25
08-10-2009, 11:31 PM
if not, just wanted to let jamesblakefan#1 that I think the majority of his/her posts are some of the best I have read...

dropshot winner
08-10-2009, 11:32 PM
Most top20 players played overall poor tennis in the late 80s and early 90s, it was almost laughable compared to the level of an Edberg and his contemporaries.

Nowadays we have a lot of headcases and ballbashers, but the technical level of tennis is definately higher and more physical, winning got harder, not easier.

I still can't stand to watch more than a few minutes.

grafselesfan
08-10-2009, 11:38 PM
Graf, Evert, and Navratilova combined for 32 of the 40 slams played in the 80s.

Yet you state this era (80s) is so much deeper than it is now. Tell me again, when does it go from these girls being so great (which I don't doubt that they are) to the rest of the field also being a bunch of clowns?

Between 1990-1996, Graf, Seles won 23 of the 28 slams played. Again, tell me at what pt where it goes from being these players being so great to the rest of the field being a bunch of ducks?

My pt is, WTA has never been so deep, and to make it as though the lack of depth in today's game is an anomaly is fudging the facts quite a bit.

I'm not doubting that Graf and Navratilova and Evert are better than today's top players, I'd be a fool to do so. But the fallacy comes in where you hype all of the women of the past as greats, when they were all basically ducks and whipping girls in the big matches (i.e. slam finals, if they even made it that far)

Well these day we even have a 2 time slam winner like Kuznetsova who between the 2004 U.S Open to 2009 French Open was unable to post a single even good win in a slam. She didnt beat even 1 of Henin, Venus, Serena, Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova, or Clijsters in between her 2 slam wins. To see someone of her relatively limited abilities, her almost total inability to beat top players in slams, and who has actually choked away opportunities to win a couple more than her current 2 (2004 and 2005 French, match points vs eventual champs, Australia vs eventual winner Serena this year) still end up with 2 slams speaks very poorly to the current era. I cant think of any other era ever that would let someone like that waste that many opportunities still win 2 slams, 1 can happen by fluke and has in other eras too, but someone like this with 2 slams and 4 slam finals in the last 5 years alone? In the last 6 years she has managed only 2 big wins in slams, a win over a badly injured Davenport who was hobbling in the 2nd and 3rd sets, and a win over Serena far past her clay court prime on clay, and that nets her 2 slams and 4 slam finals.

Back then you had a player like Sabatini who beat the great Graf over a quarter of the times they played, who reached 18 slam semis, who won a ton of tier 1 titles, who could play on all surfaces, and who was involved in many classic slam matches with Graf or Sele, win only 1 major. A player like Pierce has destroyed prime Graf and peak Sanchez Vicario in slam semis or finals, as I mentioned reemerged only several years ago to make a slew of big finals far past her best days, and is well known for her ability to beat all the game best players across a few generations on multiple occasions only was able to win 2 slams in her prime from 1994-2000. Kim Clijsters who primed mostly earlier this decade when the competition was better than the latter part of this decade won only 1 slam, do you really believe Kuznetsova who managed 2 slams peaking in the later part of the decade (more the current field) is a better player than her? I find the sheer idea of that laughable.

So yes I would consider it more the fields than anything else. The Williams hiatus in the middle of this decade, Henin's early retirement, Venus not caring about any of the year until Wimbledon these days, and Serena even not being particularly good on clay any longer, has led to openings for alot of weakish winners today that didnt exist before, and many of todays players still cant capatilize on it.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 11:57 PM
if not, just wanted to let jamesblakefan#1 that I think the majority of his/her posts are some of the best I have read...

Ty very much :D

GSF, Manlikova was 7-29 vs Navratilova. 7-19 vs Evert.

Sabatini? You tout her record vs Graf, yet she was able to get only one win over Graf in a slam.

Again, explain how the depth of women's tennis was so much greater back then, when these ducks routinely rolled into slam QF and SF, only to be rolled over to the much superior Graf, Nav, and Evert?

You've still yet to show me all these tens of players that were "held back" from winning slams, only b/c of Graf, Evert, Nav, Seles, etc.

If anything, these women were as I said, ducks who'd be 2-3 slam winners in any era if lucky, and you've yet to show me anything to disuade my opinion of such.

dannykl
08-11-2009, 03:33 AM
Safina's record vs those players would be:

0-17 vs Evert
0-26 vs Navratilova
0-21 vs Graf

Be a little more generous, grafselesfan.

Let's say

Safina 1-17 vs Evert
Safina 2-26 vs Martina
Safina 0-21 vs Graf

Oh, who is the current number one in wta?
Safina? You know how sucked wta is by it.
An errors-making machine in slams tops at the wta ranking, helpless sucked field in current wta.

If prime Graf, Seles, Navratilova or Henin were around today,they definitely would dominate today's clowns players.

Scorch
08-11-2009, 04:21 AM
I have not read anywhere in the thread what I think is the major difference:

It is not technique - today's top players have excellent technique

It is not athletisism - most of today's players are in excellent shape, better then 10 years ago let alone 20

It is the MENTAL part of the game. Safina, Dementieva, Ivanovic, Jancovic are all dwarves compared to the giants of Seles, Graf, Navratilova, Sanchez Vicario, Evert, who were all amazingly focused and not scared of winning.

Today we get head cases who cry on court, make double faults at key moments, cannot play two points in a row without looking up at their coach/mum/dad and pouting. These are just girls, they are not the women that used to dominate the game.

anointedone
08-11-2009, 04:45 AM
Sukova and Martina bunted the ball compared to Safina. Graf sliced her backhand 90% of the time. Capriati I consider today's era and Seles hit very hard.

Dont be an idiot. Safina gets between 1-4 games a match when she plays a Williams on a non clay surface. She is not an impressive power hitter by any stretch other than by the low standards of todays womens field.

Capriati of todays era!?!? I dont even know where to begin a response to something so silly. Were Wozniacki, Ivanovic, Radwanska, Azarenka, and some of the other current top players ever on tour yet when Capriati played her 15th and final pro season in a career that spanned all the way back to 1990 for crying out loud.

pmerk34
08-11-2009, 05:56 AM
Dont be an idiot. Safina gets between 1-4 games a match when she plays a Williams on a non clay surface. She is not an impressive power hitter by any stretch other than by the low standards of todays womens field.

Capriati of todays era!?!? I dont even know where to begin a response to something so silly. Were Wozniacki, Ivanovic, Radwanska, Azarenka, and some of the other current top players ever on tour yet when Capriati played her 15th and final pro season in a career that spanned all the way back to 1990 for crying out loud.

Your anger is troubling. Safina hits very hard. Watch her.

flying24
08-11-2009, 06:02 AM
Perhaps pmerk34 is this forums lone Safinatard, LOL! Every noteable player has atleast one on TW dont they.

anointedone
08-11-2009, 06:07 AM
Safina hits very hard. Watch her.

I watched the first 10 minutes of last years U.S Open semifinal, Australian Open final, French Open final, and Wimbledon semifinal featuring Safina in the last year then I changed the channel. Perhaps someday she will improve enough to produce tennis worth watching, but she has a ways to go reach that point.

julesb
08-11-2009, 06:16 AM
You are all idiots. Jamesblakefan is right for once. Players like Safina, Jankovic, and Ivanovic would blow the overrated Graf and the other olidest off the court with their amazing power.

pmerk34
08-11-2009, 06:29 AM
I watched the first 10 minutes of last years U.S Open semifinal, Australian Open final, French Open final, and Wimbledon semifinal featuring Safina in the last year then I changed the channel. Perhaps someday she will improve enough to produce tennis worth watching, but she has a ways to go reach that point.

It's a joke she is number one and not Serena. But she does hit hard.

TheFifthSet
08-11-2009, 06:35 AM
You are all idiots. Jamesblakefan is right for once. Players like Safina, Jankovic, and Ivanovic would blow the overrated Graf and the other olidest off the court with their amazing power.

Julesb, an unrelated question here:

Monica Seles played in the same field as Graf, and she beat essentially the same opponents at slam finals as Graf did.

If you concede this, may I ask why this "weak era" theory doesn't apply to Seles?

julesb
08-11-2009, 06:44 AM
Julesb, an unrelated question here:

Monica Seles played in the same field as Graf, and she beat essentially the same opponents at slam finals as Graf did.

If you concede this, may I ask why this "weak era" theory doesn't apply to Seles?

I have already answered this before but as you may not have seen my reply I will give it again:

-Seles faced Graf herself while on top. Graf did not face the real Seles while on top, she was either 15 and 16 years old, or had taken a knife in the back.

-Sabatini played her best tennis ever from late 1990-early 1993 when Seles was on top. So Seles faced the best of Sabatini while dominating, while Graf did not. After the 93 French humiliation vs Fernandez, Sabatini was pretty much finished.

-Navratilova had knee surgery after the 1990 season which allowed her to play pain free for awhile. Thus she played better in 1991-early 1993 than she had been from 1987-1990. The proof, a 2-6 record vs Graf from 87-90 and a 2-1 records vs Graf from 91-early 93. Seles actually faced a better Navratilova while on top than Graf ever did.

-Although she wasnt ever a big threat to Graf or Seles, Capriati was also there and a threat in 91 and 92. By 93 she had plateaued and she would soon be off the tour.

So you can see why the womens game was stronger while Seles was on top than Graf. Graf and Sanchez Vicario were the only strong players who were still themselves from 93-96 from the 91-early 93 group.

The-Champ
08-11-2009, 06:48 AM
Safina is definitely a hard hitter off both wings.

She needs to keep the ball on court though...

julesb
08-11-2009, 06:50 AM
Safina is definitely a hard hitter off both wings.

She needs to keep the ball on court though...

She needs to be quicker. She is too slow running down balls. Then again maybe she just isnt a natural athlete.

TheFifthSet
08-11-2009, 08:42 AM
I have already answered this before but as you may not have seen my reply I will give it again:

-Seles faced Graf herself while on top. Graf did not face the real Seles while on top, she was either 15 and 16 years old, or had taken a knife in the back.

-Sabatini played her best tennis ever from late 1990-early 1993 when Seles was on top. So Seles faced the best of Sabatini while dominating, while Graf did not. After the 93 French humiliation vs Fernandez, Sabatini was pretty much finished.

-Navratilova had knee surgery after the 1990 season which allowed her to play pain free for awhile. Thus she played better in 1991-early 1993 than she had been from 1987-1990. The proof, a 2-6 record vs Graf from 87-90 and a 2-1 records vs Graf from 91-early 93. Seles actually faced a better Navratilova while on top than Graf ever did.

-Although she wasnt ever a big threat to Graf or Seles, Capriati was also there and a threat in 91 and 92. By 93 she had plateaued and she would soon be off the tour.

So you can see why the womens game was stronger while Seles was on top than Graf. Graf and Sanchez Vicario were the only strong players who were still themselves from 93-96 from the 91-early 93 group.


- Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Graf according to you would win few slams in any other era in tennis history, would be beaten by Ivanovic, Jankovic, and Safina, who combined have one slam. And she is Seles's biggest rival. FAIL. You're shooting yourself in the foot.

- Uh, no. Her slam results were MUCH better from '87-'90. From '91-'93 she lost in the 4th round twice, 2nd round once. Don't kid yourself.

- Graf faced Capriati 10 times, 5 times in slams, from '91-'93. She was 9-1 overall, 5-0 in slams. Not buying it.

- Sabatini was still making SF's and QF's of slams, even won the year end championships in '94. Sure she wasn't as good as she was before, but she was still a formidable opponent.

LDVTennis
08-11-2009, 08:43 AM
I have already answered this before but as you may not have seen my reply I will give it again: I, JulesB, am a moron. That's why I think Seles' competition was better than Graf's.

Finally, something we can all agree on! :lol:

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Just wanted to share this great opinion from one Mr. hewittboy in the "Clijsters' Comeback" thread.

Yeah there was Graf and Seles but who else was there during that era. Navratilova was in her mid 30s and on her last legs almost literally (notice all the knee bandages and other things she was wearing while playing by then). Sabatini was a huge underachiever, a 1 slam wonder, either a waste of talent, huge choker, or someone way overrated in the first place (probably a combination of all 3). Could school Graf and Seles in non slam tournaments, could never beat them when it really mattered, even up a break in the 3rd set. The way she blew the 91 Wimbledon final to Graf was pathetic, that open court volley she poked right to Graf's sideline, ROTFL!! Sanchez Vicario was a great player with her 4 slams I guess, but she might have won her 1 early slam without the Seles stabbing. She was very spirited, overachieving, hard worker, great fighter, unbelievable defensive player, fun to watch, but she wasnt a top talent. She needed to rely on her huge heart and scrambling ability to even hang with the far more skilled Graf or Seles. Who else am I forgetting. There was Pierce, the female version of Safin, could show up and blow everyone off the court in a tournament but only showed up once every few years. There was Novotna, another mentally fragile underachieving 1 slam wonder. Then there was Capriati, one of the most overhyped players in slam history who despite lucking out to win 3 slams in 2001-2002 which really ought to have been only 1, was never a real rival to Graf or Seles, and was too young to really be in her prime yet then anyway. Then there is Conchita Martinez, what a joke, a sulky moonballer with no serve, no net game, playing 20 feet behind the baseline, didnt have the desire or heart or fitness to chase down every ball like Sanchez which you need when playing that style. How the heck was she even in the top 3 so long, what an embarassment.

Womens tennis has ALWAYS sucked. There are the big 1, 2, sometimes 3 and a bunch of clowns behind them. It has always been that way. The deepest womens field ever was really 1998-2005 in fact.

hewittboy
08-11-2009, 10:53 PM
If anyone wants to see proof of the fear of the old days pretenders from taking big titles from the true legends being every bit as much as todays contenders watch this. It is 30-30 Sabatini serving for her first Wimbledon title in the final vs Steffi Graf, huge point, if Sabatini wins this point she is at match point, if she loses it is she is at break point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apGkPZOhrxc

Look at that. She has the WHOLE court for the last volley after angling Graf completely off he court on the first one, Championship point of Wimbledon right around the corner and what does she do? She pokes it to Graf's side of the court, almost right to Graf. The very quick Graf of course scoots up and wins the point. Even Graf seems to be amazed at that huge gift. Talk about a fear of winning. Shock of all shocks Sabatini loses serve on the next point on a Graf forehand winner and two games later Graf is the Wimbledon Champion again.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-11-2009, 11:01 PM
She needs to be quicker. She is too slow running down balls. Then again maybe she just isnt a natural athlete.

She needs to become familiar with more than the baseline, and force this army of (largely) safe players to risk passing shots by incorporating some net play. Granted, at best, she would likely end up as effective at net as a Davenport, but it was clear in the FO final and Wimbledon semifinal that players with a greater command of the court can pick her game to pieces--all of the lumbering pounding and grinding need not apply.

The need of a significant strategy/style change should be apparent to Safina by now, since her "best" has been completely tested, challenged and comproised on the biggest stages. If she does not alter something..anything along the way, she may go slamless forever.

hewittboy
08-11-2009, 11:03 PM
She needs to become familiar with more than the baseline, and force this army of (largely) safe players to risk passing shots by incorporating some net play. Granted, at best, she would likely end up as effective at net as a Davenport, but it was clear in the FO final and Wimbledon semifinal that players with a greater command of the court can pick her game to pieces--all of the lumbering pounding and grinding need not apply.

The need of a significant strategy/style change should be apparent to Safina by now, since her "best" has been completely tested, challenged and comproised on the biggest stages. If she does not alter something..anything along the way, she may go slamless forever.

She needs a new coach. It is hard to build on your game when you are in a combative coaching relationship with something who doesnt appear to know much about tennis.

Scorch
08-12-2009, 12:47 AM
If anyone wants to see proof of the fear of the old days pretenders from taking big titles from the true legends being every bit as much as todays contenders watch this. It is 30-30 Sabatini serving for her first Wimbledon title in the final vs Steffi Graf, huge point, if Sabatini wins this point she is at match point, if she loses it is she is at break point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apGkPZOhrxc

Look at that. She has the WHOLE court for the last volley after angling Graf completely off he court on the first one, Championship point of Wimbledon right around the corner and what does she do? She pokes it to Graf's side of the court, almost right to Graf. The very quick Graf of course scoots up and wins the point. Even Graf seems to be amazed at that huge gift. Talk about a fear of winning. Shock of all shocks Sabatini loses serve on the next point on a Graf forehand winner and two games later Graf is the Wimbledon Champion again.

I would never put Sabatini in a list of the 'mentally strong' I also would never claim that choking is a new phenomenon. However, with the exception of Venus and Serena (and Sharapova when she is on), there are a hell of a lot more chokers in the top ten than there has ever been. Including the world number 1. Today there are a lot of matches where you don't predict the winner, you just predict who will choke last.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-12-2009, 07:19 AM
She needs a new coach. It is hard to build on your game when you are in a combative coaching relationship with something who doesnt appear to know much about tennis.

I agree she needs a new coach, but the next one needs to break her out of what she percieves as "working" for her in that one-dimensional game. The fact that she's been in slam finals seems to have conditioned her into being far too settled with her ability, as though (as she's implied) winning slams will just happen in time, when everything points in the opposite direction.

LDVTennis
08-12-2009, 11:09 AM
If anyone wants to see proof of the fear of the old days pretenders from taking big titles from the true legends being every bit as much as todays contenders watch this. It is 30-30 Sabatini serving for her first Wimbledon title in the final vs Steffi Graf, huge point, if Sabatini wins this point she is at match point, if she loses it is she is at break point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apGkPZOhrxc

Look at that. She has the WHOLE court for the last volley after angling Graf completely off he court on the first one, Championship point of Wimbledon right around the corner and what does she do? She pokes it to Graf's side of the court, almost right to Graf. The very quick Graf of course scoots up and wins the point. Even Graf seems to be amazed at that huge gift. Talk about a fear of winning. Shock of all shocks Sabatini loses serve on the next point on a Graf forehand winner and two games later Graf is the Wimbledon Champion again.

That's not an accurate analysis of the point. First of all, she does not poke it to Graf's side of the court. Sabatini tries to hit to the open court.

Sabatini should have won the point with her first volley. That was quite a good volley. Graf digs it out, just barely. Sabatini starts running to cover down the line almost as soon as she hits the first volley. That's great anticipation on her part. Given Graf's tendencies in that match, no one could have blamed her if she stayed put to cover the crosscourt.

She gets to Graf's passing shot dtl and hits the best shot she can. This isn't a nervous shot. The high backhand volley is a difficult shot. Sabatini is moving laterally into it. Without the forward momentum the shot requires, all she's got is the punch from the racquet to give it any stick. Knowing this, she emphasizes placement and angle rather than depth.

I think she's intentionally trying to drop it short. Her only mistake is that she doesn't get enough angle on the ball. She just doesn't get enough of the racquet face on the outside edge of the ball to create the angle.

Against any of today's players, Sabatini would have won that point. No one but Graf could have hit the two shots that make the critical difference in the point: the forehand to dig out the first volley and the short slice backhand, inside-out for the winner.

This point does not help you to make your point at all.